67 427 oiling questions - NCRS Discussion Boards

67 427 oiling questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • John H.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • December 1, 1997
    • 16513

    #16
    Re: 67 427 oiling questions

    Originally posted by Keith Brodbeck (14640)
    Joe the only numbers I could find in between the lobes are 4364 and GM 27
    Keith -

    4364 is the short version of 3904364, which was the core casting number for the 1967-1968 390/400hp camshaft, which didn't have a grooved rear journal; the groove must have been added.

    Comment

    • Keith B.
      Very Frequent User
      • March 7, 2008
      • 928

      #17
      Re: 67 427 oiling questions

      Originally posted by John Hinckley (29964)
      Keith -

      4364 is the short version of 3904364, which was the core casting number for the 1967-1968 390/400hp camshaft, which didn't have a grooved rear journal; the groove must have been added.
      then why or who would have stamped the number on the end of the cam for the 66 427/390 cam numbers?

      Comment

      • Michael H.
        Expired
        • January 29, 2008
        • 7477

        #18
        Re: 67 427 oiling questions

        Originally posted by Keith Brodbeck (14640)
        hello on my fathers 67 427 with a may casting of the 351 block, the rear journal of the cam and the original cam barrings have the grove like the 65-66 BBs. the original distrbutor with the semi circle grove. it was my understanding only the 65-66 BBs had all this. there is a casting number or part number stamped into the cam of 3883044. this came out of a 427/390
        Keith,

        I hope I remember this correctly. I think a grooved 65-66 cam can be used in a 67 block with a 67 style rear cam bearing but a non grooved 67 and later cam cannot be used in a 65-66 block.
        This may explain why GM continued using up inventory of glooved cams in some 67's.

        For racing, in the late 60's, GM recommended that the groove in a 65-66 cam be filled if it were to be used in a 67 and later block but I don't think there was enough of an oil leak at the bearing to be concerned about. In fact, in later years, GM no longer recommended filling the groove.

        Comment

        • Clem Z.
          Expired
          • January 1, 2006
          • 9427

          #19
          Re: 67 427 oiling questions

          Originally posted by Michael Hanson (4067)
          Keith,

          I hope I remember this correctly. I think a grooved 65-66 cam can be used in a 67 block with a 67 style rear cam bearing but a non grooved 67 and later cam cannot be used in a 65-66 block.
          This may explain why GM continued using up inventory of glooved cams in some 67's.

          For racing, in the late 60's, GM recommended that the groove in a 65-66 cam be filled if it were to be used in a 67 and later block but I don't think there was enough of an oil leak at the bearing to be concerned about. In fact, in later years, GM no longer recommended filling the groove.
          they recommended that you reduce the size of the oil feed hole in the bearing to 1/16" diameter by soldering the original hole shut and drilling a new one 1/16" dia. i did that when i did used GM grooved cams in later blocks. on street engine you did not need to do this because the internal oil leak was not a problem .

          Comment

          • Joe L.
            Beyond Control Poster
            • February 1, 1988
            • 43211

            #20
            Re: 67 427 oiling questions

            Originally posted by Keith Brodbeck (14640)
            then why or who would have stamped the number on the end of the cam for the 66 427/390 cam numbers?

            Keith-----


            I expect this was a situation in which the 3904364 core was machined into the earlier configuration. The only thing that would have been needed to be done was the machining of the rear cam journal for the 65-66 groove. Usually, whenever a camshaft is not identified by the markings between the lobes, the end of the journal was stamped with the actual part number of the finished camshaft. Why this camshaft was used in the 1967 engine is something I do not know.

            By the way, to minimize machining costs, the core for the earlier camshaft had the rear journal groove formed as part of the casting and only finish machining was then required.
            In Appreciation of John Hinckley

            Comment

            • Joe L.
              Beyond Control Poster
              • February 1, 1988
              • 43211

              #21
              Re: 67 427 oiling questions

              Originally posted by Clem Zahrobsky (45134)
              the 094 cam i believe was for FI and tunnel ram applications. i never saw a BBC cam without being stamped on the rear cam bearing journal.
              clem------


              I only recollect seeing the number stamped on the ends of camshafts that were made from generic cores. In those cases, the numbers between the lobes would not identify the camshaft. Of course, I would expect this would also be done in a case like Keith's in which the finished camshaft was not identified by the numbers between the lobes because the core used was designed for another finished camshaft and was "converted" by machining.

              However, as you say, it's very possible that all original cams had the end stamping. I just do not recollect it. There are lots of things I don't recollect.
              In Appreciation of John Hinckley

              Comment

              • Joe L.
                Beyond Control Poster
                • February 1, 1988
                • 43211

                #22
                Re: 67 427 oiling questions

                Originally posted by Wayne Midkiff (3437)
                Clem -- here's an NOS eBay cam described as L88, with grooved rear journal, and part # 3994094. This number is way newer than the parts books I have -- must be post 1970. Listing also shows some good shots of stampings on the ends.

                http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1967-...item4cfa728e89

                Wayne------


                The seller has his applications WAY OFF. The GM #3994094 camshaft was NEVER used for any PRODUCTION application and, as far as I can tell, it was never used as part of any SERVICE engine assembly. It was a SERVICE-only camshaft designed for racing applications. Personally, I consider it way too radical for street operation. But, I have a penchant for civilized street engines and some other folks don't.

                The GM #3994094 camshaft was discontinued without supercession in December, 1987.
                In Appreciation of John Hinckley

                Comment

                • Ronald L.
                  Extremely Frequent Poster
                  • October 18, 2009
                  • 3248

                  #23
                  Re: 67 427 oiling questions

                  Having been through this long before the internet or the desk top PC, Wayne got it, that is the service cams cannot be used in the 65 66 blocks. I do recall that the rebuilders charged a good extra to machine that.

                  Keith, Are you sure the cam is the original - never has someone been in the engine?

                  Comment

                  • Clem Z.
                    Expired
                    • January 1, 2006
                    • 9427

                    #24
                    Re: 67 427 oiling questions

                    Originally posted by Ronald Lovelace (50931)
                    Having been through this long before the internet or the desk top PC, Wayne got it, that is the service cams cannot be used in the 65 66 blocks. I do recall that the rebuilders charged a good extra to machine that.

                    Keith, Are you sure the cam is the original - never has someone been in the engine?
                    i can see how GM would install the grooved cam in a later block as i have seen this before but i can not see how they would install a 3 hole cam bearing.

                    Comment

                    • Keith B.
                      Very Frequent User
                      • March 7, 2008
                      • 928

                      #25
                      Re: 67 427 oiling questions

                      i know the engine was apart before. the dates on the cam barrings are a 67 date where as the crank barrings are dated 1973. but what really was done I have no clue

                      Comment

                      • Joe L.
                        Beyond Control Poster
                        • February 1, 1988
                        • 43211

                        #26
                        Re: 67 427 oiling questions

                        Originally posted by Keith Brodbeck (14640)
                        i know the engine was apart before. the dates on the cam barrings are a 67 date where as the crank barrings are dated 1973. but what really was done I have no clue
                        Keith-----


                        The cam bearings would likely not have been replaced, especially if the block was not removed from the car.
                        In Appreciation of John Hinckley

                        Comment

                        • Keith B.
                          Very Frequent User
                          • March 7, 2008
                          • 928

                          #27
                          Re: 67 427 oiling questions

                          The mystery is solved. Got a packet of receipts from the seller today and there was a bill from 1974 for a total engine rebuild with that cam part number on the bill. Also the owner went though five starters on this car

                          Comment

                          • Clem Z.
                            Expired
                            • January 1, 2006
                            • 9427

                            #28
                            Re: 67 427 oiling questions

                            Originally posted by Keith Brodbeck (14640)
                            The mystery is solved. Got a packet of receipts from the seller today and there was a bill from 1974 for a total engine rebuild with that cam part number on the bill. Also the owner went though five starters on this car
                            sounds like the engine rebuilder did not know the difference between the engines of different years

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            Searching...Please wait.
                            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                            An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                            There are no results that meet this criteria.
                            Search Result for "|||"